notice of that interpretation of the compact by the Supreme Court and abide by it, would it not, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. TUDOR. We could do nothing less than that, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Secretary, can you testify as to whether or not there is historic precedent for the type of authorization which this bill contains, that is to say, an authorization as far as Congress is concerned which requires only thereafter the findings by the Department of the Interior of certain facts and a report thereto to the President?

Is there precedent for that type?

Mr. TUDOR. I believe there is, Senator. I am not familiar with it in detail. But as I recall it, the reclamation law did authorize the Secretary to certify to the authorization of certain projects, and if I am not mistaken, such action was taken in the case of the Trinity River project in 1952. Self-authorization it was called.

Senator KUCHEL. How many projects were involved in that authorization?

Mr. TUDOR. That I don't know, sir. I believe that was general authorization rather than specific.

Senator KUCHEL. Is it not true that in that instance there was only one project involved, however, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. TUDOR. I don't know how many times the authorization was used by the Secretary, but it is my impression that there was a general authority for doing it, and that it has been used a number of times. We can, if you would like, collect some data on that.

Senator KUCHEL. Is there precedent for the provision that your bill contains relative to the creation of a revolving fund?

Mr. TUDOR. I don't think there is in this specific instance. I think the effect of this has been used elsewhere, and that this makes it, I believe, on a much better and sounder basis. For example, the matter of a basin account, which really this enunciates, is in effect in the Columbia Basin. It has been implemented by virtue of the postage stamp rate, where the electricity of the various generating plants is sold at a common rate, Hungry Horse, Bonneville and so forth.

The same general effect is also implemented in the Central Valley of California, where the power of Shasta, for example, is used as a fiscal medium for supporting reclamation projects in the valley. They have never been set out in clearcut, crystal procedures such as this, and we believe this is a clear way of doing it.

Senator KUCHEL. Is it not true, however, that in the case of the project in California, its development annually has been entirely dependent upon the annual decision of Congress as to what, if any moneys, are to be appropriated?

Mr. TUDOR. That would be the case here, too.

Senator KUCHEL. By the creation of a revolving fund you would still require appropriations of Congress to feed in moneys as they went out in construction?

Mr. TUDOR. That is correct. For instance, in (c) of my state

ment

be available for operation and maintenance of the project, subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Congress in annual appropriations.

Senator KUCHEL. But with respect to (b), receive all revenues connected with operation of the project.

Presumably those revenues would feed your revolving fund so that the revolving fund thereafter might be used not merely by appropriations but also by revenues for the construction of the projects?

Mr. TUDOR. No, we wouldn't make any expenditures from the revolving fund except with the approval of Congress. It would not be the kind of revolving fund which is at the full disposal of the Secretary.

Senator KUCHEL. Could you point out where in the bill that limitation appears?

Mr. TUDOR. It is in section 4 of the proposed bill, Senator.

Senator WATKINS. The proposed bill you are speaking of, Mr. Secretary, is not S. 1555; is it?

Mr. TUDOR. No, that is not the Senate version. It is the recommended bill that we put in, sir. We recommended those limitations be put on the expenditures.

Senator WATKINS. In other words, it is not in the bill that was introduced?

Mr. TUDOR. No, sir; I think it is not. It is in the recommendations that we made to that bill.

Senator KUCHEL. Could you, Mr. Secretary, supply the committee with the several recommendations which the Department has made that do not appear in the Senate bill so that we could see the distinction between the Department's recommendations and the Senate bill? Mr. TUDOR. Yes, sir. We will have to build that up and show you the differences between them, but we will do that.

(The information referred to, when received, will be considered by the committee and retained in the committee files.)

Senator KUCHEL. I have no further questions.

Mr. TUDOR. You have our recommendations, but the comparison has not been made.

Senator KUCHEL. Yes. That is so that we have something before us to that we can see where the bill before us is different from the recommendations.

Senator WATKINS. Senator Anderson, have you finished?

Senator ANDERSON. I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Tudor.

We will next call Mr. E. O. Larson, regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation in Salt Lake City, Utah.

You may proceed, Mr. Larson.

STATEMENT OF E. O. LARSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION 4, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ACCOMPANIED BY C. B. JACOBSON, PROJECT ENGINEER, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT

Mr. LARSON. My name is E. O. Larson. I am regional director of region 4 of the Bureau of Reclamation, with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah.

Senator WATKINS. You will have to speak up. It is a little difficult for us to hear in this end of the room. I am sure the other witnesses will be glad to hear you at the same time.

Mr. LARSON. Before I begin my statement, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the map on the wall showing the major dams and

dam sites for river regulation and project works for the entire Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River rises in the high mountains in west central Wyoming.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Larson, I believe it would probably be a little better if you would go to the map, because we tend to watch the man who is pointing and at the same time try to listen to you, and it is difficult. If we can get the words and pointing together, it would be easier to understand you.

Mr. LARSON. The Colorado River rises in the high mountains in west central Wyoming and flows in a southwesterly direction, a distance of about 1,200 miles, into the Gulf of California.

The map shows the team of 9 reservoirs for the upper basin, the location of the dams and diversion dams constructed along the river in the lower basin, and the 11 participating projects in the upper basin, the location of which are shown by red dots. The Colorado River Basin is very large. It covers 110,000 square miles in the upper basin and 132,000 square miles in the lower basin.

Senator KUCHEL. 132,000?

Mr. LARSON. 132,000; pardon me.

The basin includes the Green River Basin in Wyoming, all of Colorado west of the Continental Divide, all of Utah east of the divide of the Wasatch Mountains, and the San Juan Basin in New Mexico, that is the tributaries of the San Juan River; a small area in the northeast corner of Arizona, down to the dividing line between the upper and lower basins at Lees Ferry, which is a point on the Colorado River in Arizona about 30 miles south of the UtahArizona line.

Senator WATKINS. While you are there, would you indicate now the sites on the main steam of the river, the nine storage projects contemplated in this legislation? Point out the location on that map. Mr. LARSON. Beginning at the top, I first refer to the Echo Park Dam site, just below the confluence of the Yampa and the Green Rivers within the State of Colorado. Immediately above the Echo Park site on the Green is the Ashley Dam site, for the generally known Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Immediately above the Echo Park Reservoir on the Yampa River is the Cross Mountain Dam site. Just below Echo Park is the Split Mountain Dam site. Going on downstream, about 22 miles north of Green River, Utah, is located the Gray Canyon Dam site on the Green River. Over on the Gunnison River, the White Water Dam site is located near Grand Junction. Going upstream the next site is the Crystal Dam site. Up above the Crystal Dam site is the Blue Mesa Dam site for the generally known Curecanti Reservoir. On the main stream of the Colorado River, just a few miles upstream from Lees Ferry, is the largest site of all, the Glen Canyon Dam site. Another large reservoir site pertinent to our discussion and the bill is the Navaho site on the San Juan, just south of the Colorado-New Mexico State line.

Senator WATKINS. Will you indicate, while you are there, the construction that has been done in the lower basin, the projects that have been built?

Mr. LARSON. In the lower basin, beginning at the top, there are the Hoover, the Davis, and Parker Dams-I am not too familiar down there. Of course, the Imperial diversion dam and the Moreles Dam,

the lowest one; also at Headgate Rock, there is a diversion and a new dam, I believe, is proposed there.

Senator WATKINS. At how many sites in the lower basin do they have powerplants?

Mr. LARSON. The large powerplants are installed at Hoover, Davis, and Parker, and there is a powerplant at Pilot Knob wasteway on the All-American Canal.

Senator WATKINS. That is being built by the Imperial Valley Irrigation District with its own funds and under its own auspices, is it not?

Mr. LARSON. That is my understanding. The important reservoir sites in the lower basin are: the Marble Canyon site, a short distance downstream from the Glen Canyon site, and the Bridge Canyon Reservoir site just above the backwater of Lake Mead, and Hoover Dam.

Senator WATKINS. Do you have a prepared statement or can you give for us a statement on the amount of money that has been spent in the lower basin by the United States through the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. LARSON. I am sure that figure can be furnished in the morning, Mr. Chairman, but I do not have it here.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Reclamation expenditures in lower Colorado River Basin States through June 30, 1953

1 Because of the physical location of certain structures, such as Hoover Dam, expenditures cannot be readily separated between States.

In addition to lower Colorado River expenditures the following amounts have been expended elsewhere in those States:

Senator WATKINS. You may take your seat, then, and go on with your statement.

Mr. LARSON. The legislation before you is the culmination of many years of effort by State and Federal agencies to develop the water resources of the upper Colorado River Basin. Without this develop

ment, the economy of a vast area of potential wealth cannot grow, and the States and the Nation will be denied its riches.

I shall briefly review the background of this legislation because an understanding of the problem facing the States of the upper basin in the use of its water, and the steps that have been taken to plan for such use are important in your consideration of this bill (S. 1555). Many of you are familiar with this background, but I believe a repetition of the essential facts is desirable and should be a part of this record.

The Colorado River compact of 1922 requires a delivery at Lee Ferry, the point of division between the upper and lower basins, of not less than 75 million acre-feet over any consecutive 10-year period. There are further provisions in the compact relating to surplus water, but this is the controlling and important limitation. With the uneven flow of the Colorado River-erratic periods of drought and flood-substantial water development in the upper basin is impossible under this limitation without river regulation.

Our studies show that unless there is adequate storage to harvest floodwaters, only 58 percent of the water apportioned to the upper basin could be used, and even that at some risk of periodic shortages. After some 20 years of investigations, the Bureau of Reclamation issued the Colorado River report in 1946 covering potential development on the entire Colorado River and including over 100 irrigation and power projects in the upper basin. This report was an inventory and served as a guide for planning and compact negotiations. In 1948 the upper Colorado River compact was signed apportioning the water among the States of the upper basin. This was a comprehensive document covering the many phases of interstate and intrastate river development, and making specific plans for the use of Colorado River water possible. With that as a foundation, the Bureau of Reclamation issued in 1950 the report Colorado River storage project and participating projects with supplements.

Presented in the report was a plan for ultimate development of the upper Colorado River Basin in terms of storage, but only for partial development in terms of water utilization. This plan encompassed a system of 10 major storage reservoirs and powerplants on the main stem and important tributaries of the Colorado River which is designated the Colorado River storage project, and an initial group of participating irrigation and multiple-purpose projects on the tributaries which is called participating projects.

The proposal, however, is such as to permit additions to the plan of other such participating projects as they are investigated and found to be feasible. Recommended in that report for initial construction were 5 storage units and 11 participating projects.

The 10 reservoirs, later reduced to 9 when the Navaho Reservoir was included in the Navaho participating project, were designed to regulate the flow of the river to allow for both the delivery of water to the lower basin and the full use of apportioned water in the upper basin. They would provide 23 million acre-feet of active storage, capacity for minimum power heads, fish propagation, and space for 200 years of sediment deposition; in all 47 million acre-feet. No single site on the Colorado River or its tributaries is capable of storing that amount of water, which is one and a half times as great as the capacity of Lake Mead.